"In the meantime, to declare that crowdsourcing "got it wrong" is to insist that there's an objective measure of "correct" at this point to justify such an assertion and is premature."
You can say that they're wrong in the same way that a stopped clock is wrong even though it will match the correct time twice a day, or that homeopathy is wrong although a particular patient might have recovered. This example of crowdsourcing had to process that could result in a useful answer, except by accident. Whether the final result matches the actual perpetrator(s) is actually besides the point, since what we have is a process that provably cannot be depended on to produce anything useful more often than a random selection.
Amazon Digital Services is separately incorporated. So it's like saying that the parent organization of Youtube provides an internet search engine. Which it does.
"The point is that many of them will involve computers to a large degree, so although a company like Ford makes no money with computers per-se every area of their operation will involve computer systems. As a result they will have a huge amount of computer expertise."
They will consume a huge amount of computing. That does not equal expertise.
For example, you can consume a huge amount of beer. That does not grant you any expertise in brewing. That doesn't even mean you can pick good beers to drink.
"do you REALLY not understand that they are concerned with different "freedom" than you are?"
For the Right-wing "Libertarians", they really don't understand. They believe that rights cannot conflict, therefore if two things that look like rights are conflicting then one is not a right.
"Now think of how many people are fuelling up at a gas station at any given moment, "
On average, less than one.
Now the *peak* number may be high. That's why you have a local buffer to manage differing instantaneous rates at input and output... just they they do for gasoline.
There are actual reasons why things that look like they are covered under distracted driving become their own violations.
A trial, to claim distracted driving the prosecution has to reprove every time that an action constitutes a distraction. That mean hiring an expert witness, then the defense's expert witness, then the time spent covering the same facts again and again that are not specific to the case. Also, at the time of citation the citing officer does not have independently decide how to argue that something constitutes a distraction and can avoid cases where later on the citation is thrown out.
The raw materials occur in particular places, i.e. it only makes sense to place a coal mine where there is coal. The algae grower is free to chose where to set up from a variety of locations.
But you know who won't have to go through the grope lines? People from Saudi Arabia. You know, the country that produced produced 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers.If you had read the article
-1, illiterate.
If you had read the article you linked, you would have noted that there is no mention of eliminating any TSA screening for Saudi nationals. What the article actually talks about is reciprocity in the Global Entry problem which allows self-service at Immigration (not TSA screening). Eligibility for that program is mainly about technical features of a country's passport.
Slashdot Mirror
The one time they edit something...
Why is it bad when Americans name a naval ship "Freedom" but not when the British have done so?
"most would agree I said nothing that wasn't deserved"
You referred to his organization as "lazy and inconsiderate" for not doing things which they actually did do. That's pretty undeserved.
Nowhere do I claim to be talking about crowd-sourcing in general.
The assertion was about genre, not tropes. You have answered the wrong question.
"That is why welfare states in EU are in deep financial trouble. "
Well, that and the unicorn infestation.
Part of the problem is that you're bad with math.
You may in fact be working three jobs and have miscounted.
"In the meantime, to declare that crowdsourcing "got it wrong" is to insist that there's an objective measure of "correct" at this point to justify such an assertion and is premature."
You can say that they're wrong in the same way that a stopped clock is wrong even though it will match the correct time twice a day, or that homeopathy is wrong although a particular patient might have recovered. This example of crowdsourcing had to process that could result in a useful answer, except by accident. Whether the final result matches the actual perpetrator(s) is actually besides the point, since what we have is a process that provably cannot be depended on to produce anything useful more often than a random selection.
Authentication would then require more data to be passed than the actual message.
"But that's not a very common position."
It's not a consistent position, but it is a typical one.
Amazon Digital Services is separately incorporated. So it's like saying that the parent organization of Youtube provides an internet search engine. Which it does.
You'll need to move the goalposts again.
"The point is that many of them will involve computers to a large degree, so although a company like Ford makes no money with computers per-se every area of their operation will involve computer systems. As a result they will have a huge amount of computer expertise."
They will consume a huge amount of computing. That does not equal expertise.
For example, you can consume a huge amount of beer. That does not grant you any expertise in brewing. That doesn't even mean you can pick good beers to drink.
You forgot to tell us that you also do not have a television.
Gotta catch them all.
"do you REALLY not understand that they are concerned with different "freedom" than you are?"
For the Right-wing "Libertarians", they really don't understand. They believe that rights cannot conflict, therefore if two things that look like rights are conflicting then one is not a right.
"Now think of how many people are fuelling up at a gas station at any given moment, "
On average, less than one.
Now the *peak* number may be high. That's why you have a local buffer to manage differing instantaneous rates at input and output... just they they do for gasoline.
"except for some feeb trying to prove something "
How about "people that recognize that their pockets are opaque"?
"(Cue flamebait about lazy USians needing TLA's for everything). "
How is a bigoted comment about Mexicans relevant?
"You're not going to have 15 separate companies digging their own tunnels through the city"
Ignoring, of course, the actual history of subway growth.
Which United States? Mexico?
Perhaps you are over 45 and from Brazil? Or over 60 and from Venezuela?
New Hampshire will crow about having no cloud taxes, but never mention that they have no clouds and only siphon off of those in Massachusetts.
There are actual reasons why things that look like they are covered under distracted driving become their own violations.
A trial, to claim distracted driving the prosecution has to reprove every time that an action constitutes a distraction. That mean hiring an expert witness, then the defense's expert witness, then the time spent covering the same facts again and again that are not specific to the case. Also, at the time of citation the citing officer does not have independently decide how to argue that something constitutes a distraction and can avoid cases where later on the citation is thrown out.
The raw materials occur in particular places, i.e. it only makes sense to place a coal mine where there is coal. The algae grower is free to chose where to set up from a variety of locations.
But you know who won't have to go through the grope lines? People from Saudi Arabia. You know, the country that produced produced 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers.If you had read the article
-1, illiterate. If you had read the article you linked, you would have noted that there is no mention of eliminating any TSA screening for Saudi nationals. What the article actually talks about is reciprocity in the Global Entry problem which allows self-service at Immigration (not TSA screening). Eligibility for that program is mainly about technical features of a country's passport.